[Cites 24, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Validad Khan @Mullah vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 March, 2026
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 16.02.2026
Pronounced on: 12.03.2026
+ W.P.(CRL) 2541/2025
VALIDAD KHAN @ MULLAH .....Petitioner
Through: Ms.Sia Das and Ms.Ria Das,
Advocates
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms.Rupali Bandhopadhya,
CGSC with Mr.Amit Peswani,
Mr.Abhijeet Kumar and
Ms.Amisha Gupta, Advs. for
UOI
Mr.Amol Sinha, ASC (Crl.)
with Mr.Kshitiz Garg,
Mr.Ashvini Kumar, Ms.Chavi
Lazarus, Mr.Manan Wadhwa
and Mr.Anshul Sharma, Advs.
for State with SI Ankit,
ANTF/Crime Branch
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the Detention Order dated
20.03.2025, bearing File No. U-11011/01/2025-PITNDPS, passed by
the respondent no. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as the, „PITNDPS Act‟), whereby the detention
of the petitioner has been directed and he has been ordered to be kept
in custody at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, on the ground that
such detention is necessary with a view to preventing him from
engaging in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances in future.
2. In the grounds on which the Detention Order has been issued, it
has been alleged that the petitioner is involved in three (03) criminal
cases, that is, F.I.R. No. 43/2024 dated 25.02.2024 registered at P.S.
Crime Branch, Delhi under Sections 21/27A/29/31/32 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to
as "NDPS Act"), in which he is presently in judicial custody; F.I.R.
No. 223/2019 dated 08.12.2019 registered at P.S. Special Cell, Delhi
under Sections 21/29/61/85 of the NDPS Act, in which the trial
against the petitioner is pending and he has been released on bail vide
Order dated 01.12.2023; and F.I.R. No. 13/2013 dated 17.03.2013
registered at P.S. Special Cell, Delhi under Sections 21/29/61/85 of
the NDPS Act, in which he has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo 12 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.
1,00,000/-. However, upon an appeal filed by the petitioner
challenging the said conviction and sentence, the sentence has been
suspended vide Order dated 20.03.2019.
3. The grounds of detention further make the following allegations
against the petitioner:
"1.4 Other involvements:
a) The criminal tendencies of the accused,
Validad Khan i.e. you, appear to be deeply
ingrained in your family as well, revealing a
dangerous environment of criminal activity.
Your wife, Anjum Begum, also known as
Chunia, was arrested in connection with FIR
No. 252/22 under the NDPS Act by the PS
Crime Branch, Delhi. Additionally, your elder
son, Gulzar, has been involved in two separate
NDPS cases: FIR No. 680/21 under sections
21/25/29 of the NDPS Act, and FIR No. 252/22
under the same sections, both registered at the
PS Crime Branch, Delhi. Your second son,
Shahbaz, was arrested for murder in FIR No.
476/22 under Section 302 IPC, PS Meerganj,
Bareilly. Notably, the murder victim in this
case was a source in an ongoing NDPS
investigation.
b) In total, 21,935 grams of heroin and
other drugs have been seized across these
various cases involving Validad Khan i.e. you,
highlighting your significant involvement in
the illicit drug trade. This substantial quantity
of drugs underscores the depth of your
criminal network, which likely extends beyond
those already apprehended, with many
individuals still evading law enforcement."
4. Based on the above factual narration, the subjective satisfaction
of the Detaining Authority is recorded as under:
"2. After going through the facts and
circumstances in all above-mentioned cases, it
is clearly established that you i.e. Validad
Khan @ Balidad @ Mullah S/O Sultan Khan,
are actively involved in trafficking of
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
and you are a habitual offender. Your
presence in the society is a threat to innocent
person of the locality/State/Nation and your
activities are prejudicial to society.
3. I am aware that at present you i.e.
Validad Khan @ Balidad @Mullah S/O Sultan
Khan are in Judicial Custody. However,
considering your conscious involvement in
illegal trafficking of drugs and psychotropic
substances in a repeated manner to the
detriment of the society, you have a high
propensity to be involved in the prejudicial
activities in future.
4. In view of the facts mentioned above, I
have no hesitation in arriving at the
conclusion that you i.e. Validad Khan @
Balidad @ Mullah S/O Sultan Khan through
your above acts engaged yourself in
prejudicial activities of illicit traffic of
narcotics and psychotropic substances, which
poses serious threat to the health and welfare
not only to the citizens of this country but to
every citizen in the world, besides deleterious
effect on the national economy. The offences
committed by you i.e. Validad Khan @
Balidad @ Mullah S/O Sultan Khan are so
interlinked and continuous character and are
of such nature that these affect security and
health of the nation. The grievous nature and
gravity of offences committed by you i.e.
Validad Khan @ Balidad @ Mullah S/O
Sultan Khan in a well-planned manner clearly
establishes your continued propensity and
inclination to engage in such acts of
prejudicial activities. Considering the facts of
the present case mentioned in foregoing paras,
I have no hesitation in arriving at the
conclusion that there is ample opportunity for
Validad Khan @ Balidad @ Mullah S/O
Sultan Khan i.e. you to repeat the above
serious prejudicial acts. Hence, I am satisfied
that in the meantime you i.e. Validad Khan @
Balidad @ Mullah S/O Sultan Khan should be
immobilized and there is a need to prevent you
i.e. Validad Khan @ Balidad @ Mullah S/O
Sultan Khan from engaging in such illicit
traffic of narcotic drug and psychotropic
substances in future by detention under section
3(1) of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
(PITNDPS) Act, 1988.
5. In view of the overwhelming evidences
discussed in foregoing paras, detailing how
you i.e. Validad Khan @ Balidad @ Mullah
S/O Sultan Khan have indulged in organizing
the illicit trafficking of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic substances as well as have a
high propensity to engage in this illicit
activity, it is conclusively felt that if you are
not detained under section 3(1) of the
PITNDPS Act, 1988, you i.e. Validad Khan @
Balidad @ Mullah S/O Sultan Khan would
continue to so engage yourself in possessing,
purchase, sale, transportation, storage, use of
narcotics and psychotropic substances
illegally and handling the above activities,
organizing directly in the above activities and
conspiring in furtherance of above activities
which amount to illicit trafficking of
psychotropic substances under section 2(e) of
the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
(PITNDPS) Act, 1988 in future also. I am,
therefore, satisfied that there is full
justification to detain you i.e. Validad Khan @
Balidad @ Mullah S/O Sultan Khan under
section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic
in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1988 with a view to preventing
you i.e. Validad Khan @ Balidad @ Mullah
S/O Sultan Khan from engaging in above illicit
traffic of narcotics and psychotropic
substances specified under schedule to the
NDPS Act, 1985."
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER:
5. Challenging the Impugned Detention Order, the learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the Impugned Detention Order, though
records that the petitioner is in judicial custody in F.I.R. No. 43/2024,
fails to note that the petitioner has not applied for bail in the said case.
In fact, the Impugned Detention Order records that the co-accused,
Furkan Khan, had applied for bail, which was rejected by the learned
Special Judge (NDPS), Shahdara District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi,
vide Order dated 20.05.2024. The Impugned Order, therefore, fails to
address the vital issue as to why the Impugned Detention Order was
required to be passed when the petitioner was already in judicial
custody and had not even applied for bail. In support of the said
submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Roshini Devi v. The
State of Telangana & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 47; Dharmendra
Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India & Ors., (1990) 1 SCC 746;
Dulal Roy v. District Magistrate, Burdwan & Ors., (1975) 1 SCC
837, and of this Court in Taimoor Khan v. Union of India & Anr.,
(2024) SCC OnLine Del 416; and Farukh @ Chapta v. Union of
India & Anr., 2024:DHC:3414-DB.
6. She submits that the mere involvement of the petitioner in
earlier cases, cannot be a ground for passing the Impugned Detention
Order, as the object of passing the Detention Order is preventive in
nature and not punitive. In support of her submissions, she places
reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Khudiram Das v.
State of West Bengal, (1975) 2 SCC 81, and Pramod Singla v. Union
of India & Ors., (2024) 19 SCC 791.
7. She further submits that, in the present case, there was an
inordinate delay not only in the passing of the Impugned Detention
Order but also in its execution. She submits that although the last
F.I.R., that is, F.I.R. No. 43/2024, was lodged on 12.03.2024, the
Impugned Detention Order was passed only on 20.03.2025, and was
executed upon the petitioner on 21.04.2025, while the petitioner was
in judicial custody. No explanation has been furnished by the
respondents for the delay in passing the Impugned Detention Order or
in its execution. She submits that the same is sufficient to set aside the
Impugned Detention Order, as it fails to disclose any live link between
the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention. In support of
her submissions, she places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura & Ors., 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1333.
8. She lastly submits that though in paragraph 1.4(a) of the
Grounds of Detention, reference has been made to the F.I.R.(s)
registered against other family members of the petitioner, the
relevance of the same to the Impugned Detention Order has not been
disclosed. The petitioner is not an accused in those F.I.R.(s). She
further submits that, in any event, copies of the said F.I.R.(s) were not
supplied to the petitioner as relied-upon documents. This, in her
submission, prejudiced the petitioner in making an effective
representation and was violative of his Fundamental Rights as
protected under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
9. She submits that although a copy of the order rejecting the bail
application of the co-accused, Furkan Khan, was supplied to the
petitioner in English, the same was not supplied in Urdu, which is the
only language known to him, thereby denying him an effective
opportunity to make a representation against the Detention Order. She
submits that this violates the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner
under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In support of her
submissions, she places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors., 2024 INSC 683.
10. She further submits that the Impugned Detention Order makes
reference to the seizure of 21,935 grams of heroin and other drugs
across various cases allegedly involving the petitioner, however, it
does not disclose how this quantity has been computed or arrived at.
She submits that the said figure, at the very least, appears to be
incorrect.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE
RESPONDENTS:
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the propensity of the petitioner to repeatedly commit
offences under the NDPS Act immediately upon being released from
custody, is self-evident from the grounds of detention. They submit
that in F.I.R. No. 13/2013, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced
to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment vide Order dated 05.04.2018
passed by the learned Special Judge. His sentence was suspended by
this Court only on 20.03.2019. Immediately upon being released from
custody, the petitioner was found to be involved in F.I.R. No.
223/2019, registered on 08.12.2019. In the said case, the petitioner
was granted bail vide Order dated 01.12.2023. Again, immediately
upon being released on bail, the petitioner was found to be involved in
another case under the NDPS Act, that is, F.I.R. No. 43/2024
registered on 25.02.2024, thereby clearly evidencing that whenever
the petitioner is released from custody, he has the propensity to
commit the same offence repeatedly. The learned counsels for the
respondents submit that it is for this reason that the respondent no. 2
has passed the Impugned Detention Order. In support of their
submission, they place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Union of India v. Paul Manickam & Anr., (2003) 8 SCC 342, and
of this Court in Monu @ Sandeep v. Union of India Through Its
Secretary & Ors., 2025:DHC:1593-DB.
12. The learned counsels for the respondents further submit that the
cases against the family members, referred to in paragraph 1.4(a) of
the Grounds of Detention, reflect that not only the petitioner, but the
entire family of the petitioner, is involved in criminal activities
relating to drugs and, in fact, the second son of the petitioner has been
arrested for the murder of a source in an ongoing NDPS investigation.
They submit that this shows that, even while in jail, the petitioner has
not stopped his illegal activities, and it is for this reason, that the
Impugned Detention Order directs his detention at Chennai.
13. The learned counsels for the respondents further submit that the
quantity referred to in paragraph 1.4(b) of the grounds of detention,
reflects the quantity recovered not only from the petitioner but also
from the co-accused in various F.I.R.(s). They submit that, therefore,
there is no ambiguity in the Impugned Detention Order.
14. As regards the non-supply of copies of the F.I.R.(s) against the
other family members, and the order rejecting the bail of the co-
accused, Furkan Khan, not being supplied in Urdu to the petitioner,
they submit that the same were not relevant to the Detention Order
and no prejudice was caused to the petitioner due to their non-supply.
They submit that the bail of Furkan Khan had, in fact, been rejected by
the learned Special Judge and, therefore, the said order was not
relevant for the petitioner for the purpose of making his
representation.
15. As far as the delay in passing the Impugned Detention Order
and its execution is concerned, they submit that the charge-sheet in
F.I.R. No. 43/2024 was filed on 22.08.2024. As there was a likelihood
of the petitioner being released on bail and considering the magnitude
of the petitioner‟s involvement in well-organized crime, the proposal
to initiate proceedings under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act was
sent by the Sponsoring Authority on 10.09.2024. The same was,
however, returned due to certain administrative lacunae. The proposal
was re-sent on 23.10.2024, and after considering the same, the
Impugned Detention Order was passed on 20.03.2025. On the very
next day, that is, 21.03.2025, the Superintendent, Mandoli Jail was
informed, and a copy of the Detention Order was sent to make
necessary arrangements for shifting the petitioner to Central Jail,
Puzhal. A copy of the Detention Order was also sent to the
Superintendent, Central Jail, Puzhal, through the Home Department,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, on 28.03.2025. On 05.04.2025, an e-mail was
also sent to the Superintendent, Mandoli Jail and the Director General
(Prisons), Delhi Prisons, Tihar Jail, New Delhi, requesting them to
make the necessary arrangements for shifting the petitioner to Central
Jail, Puzhal. The petitioner was transferred to Central Jail, Puzhal, on
18.04.2025, and the Detention Order was served upon the petitioner
on 21.04.2025. His representation thereagainst was considered by the
State Advisory Board (PITNDPS), Tamil Nadu, which found
sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. Accordingly, in
exercise of the powers conferred under Section 9(f) of the PITNDPS
Act, the Detention Order was confirmed vide Order dated 25.06.2025.
They submit that, therefore, there was no delay in any of the stages,
and the present petition deserves to be dismissed by this Court.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
16. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties and also perused the record.
17. From a reading of the Impugned Detention Order and the
grounds on which it is based, it is evident that the petitioner was, and
continues to be, in judicial custody in relation to F.I.R. No. 43/2024. It
is an admitted fact that he had not even applied for bail at least till the
passing of the Impugned Detention Order. It is also an admitted
position in the Impugned Detention Order, that the co-accused of the
petitioner, namely Furkan Khan, had applied for bail, which was
rejected by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Shahdara District,
Karkardooma Court, Delhi, vide Order dated 20.05.2024. However,
the Impugned Detention Order does not record that, despite the above
admitted facts, there was any likelihood of the petitioner being
released on bail.
18. We must remain mindful of the fact that the object of a
preventive detention order is not to punish but to prevent a person
from acting in a prejudicial manner. Where the person concerned is
already in custody at the time when the detention order is passed, the
Competent Authority must, on the basis of cogent and tangible
material, and not on mere apprehension, arrive at a conclusion that
such person is likely to be released on bail and that, upon such release,
he would continue to indulge in prejudicial activities.
19. In this regard, we may place reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Roshini Devi (supra), wherein the Supreme Court
has held as under:
"8. The order of detention merely refers to
three crimes registered against the detenu on
16.09.2024, 12.12.2024 and 17.12.2024. It
may be noted that pursuant to Crime
No.270/2024 dated 12.12.2024, the detenu had
been arrested and was in judicial custody
when Crime No.42/2024 dated 17.12.2024
came to be registered. On the premise that if
the detenu was released on bail she was likely
to indulge in serious offences, the detaining
authority proceeded to record that it was
satisfied that cases registered against her
under the ordinary law had no deterrent effect
in preventing her prejudicial activities.
Whether the conditions imposed while
enlarging the detenu on bail in the earlier
offences were insufficient to prevent her from
indulging in similar offences has not been
adverted to. It would be profitable to refer to
the reason for detention as recorded by the
Detaining Authority in the detention order.
The relevant portion thereof reads as under:
... From the aforesaid observations, it is clear
that the Detaining Authority intended to detain
the mother of the appellant at any cost. Her
conduct during the period from 2016 to 2023
has been kept in mind. If the Detaining
Authority was of the view that the detenu had
violated any conditions of bail, steps for
cancellation of her liberty could have been
taken. That has not been done here.
9. In. this regard, we may refer to the
decision of this Court in Ameena Begum Vs.
the State of Telangana and Others, wherein
the effect of extraneous factors weighing in the
mind of the Detaining Authority while passing
an order of detention has been considered.
Incidentally, the order of detention therein was
also passed under the Act of 1986. It has been
observed in paragraphs 49 to 52 as under: -
... Thus, mere apprehension on the part of the
detaining authority that in the event of the
detenu being released on bail, she was likely
to indulge in similar crimes that would be
prejudicial to maintenance of public order
would not be a sufficient ground to order her
preventive detention."
20. In the present case, the above material and the requisite
satisfaction of the Competent Authority are lacking and are not
reflected in the Impugned Detention Order. On this ground alone, the
Impugned Detention Order is liable to be set aside.
21. In addition to the above, in paragraph 1.4(a) of the Impugned
Detention Order, reference has been made to the F.I.R.(s) against the
other family members of the petitioner, however, their relevance to the
detention of the petitioner has not been explained. It is only in the oral
submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, that such
relevance has been sought to be explained by stating that the
petitioner, along with his family members, is working as part of a
syndicate. Having not been expressly stated in the Impugned
Detention Order, including what specific inference the Competent
Authority seeks to draw against the petitioner from the reference to
these FIRs, in our view, this constitutes extraneous material relied
upon by the Competent Authority and in any case, prejudiced the
petitioner from making an effective representation against the
Detention Order, thereby violating his Fundamental Right under
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In this regard, reference may
be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ameena Begum v.
State of Telangana & Ors., (2023) 9 SCC 587, wherein the Supreme
Court emphasized that the detaining authority must ensure that the
detention order does not reflect consideration of extraneous factors.
The grounds of detention must clearly demonstrate the relevance of
the factors relied upon, however, such relevance is missing in the
Impugned Detention Order.
22. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was not supplied
with a copy of the order rejecting the bail application of the co-
accused, Furkan Khan, in F.I.R. No. 43/2024. The same was a relied-
upon document and was supplied to the petitioner only in English,
which the petitioner claims is not a language known to him. It is in
acknowledgment of this fact that the respondents supplied the relied-
upon documents to the petitioner in Urdu as well. However, no
explanation has been provided for the failure to supply a copy of the
bail order in Urdu to the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, been
prevented from making an effective representation against the
detention order, which amounts to a violation of Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India, as explained by the Supreme Court in Jaseela
Shaji (supra).
23. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that
the said order was not relevant to the petitioner‟s representation, does
not appeal to us. The petitioner, with a copy of the said order, could
have demonstrated that there was no likelihood of his being released
on bail especially when his co-accused had already been denied the
same. Even otherwise, once a document is relied upon, a copy thereof
in the language known to the detenu, must be supplied to the detenu.
24. There is also a delay, not only in passing the Impugned
Detention Order, but also in executing the same upon the petitioner.
While the Charge-Sheet in F.I.R. No. 43/2024 was filed on
22.08.2024, which is stated to have given rise to the apprehension that
the petitioner may be released on bail, the proposal for issuance of the
Impugned Detention Order was initiated by the Sponsoring Authority
only on 10.09.2024, and the Detention Order came to be passed only
on 20.03.2025, that is, after a delay of almost seven months. Even
thereafter, the Detention Order was not executed upon the petitioner
until 21.04.2025. The explanation given is that steps were being taken
to transfer the petitioner from Mandoli Jail, Delhi, to Central Jail,
Puzhal, Chennai. In our view, this cannot justify the delay in
executing the Detention Order upon the petitioner.
25. In Sushanta Kumar Banik (supra), the Supreme Court had held
that if there is an unreasonable delay between the date of the detention
order and the actual arrest or detention of the detenu, the same must be
satisfactorily explained, failing which it would cast considerable doubt
on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority in passing the detention order.
26. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that, in
paragraph 1.4(b) of the grounds of detention, it is alleged that a total
of 21,935 grams of heroin and other drugs had been seized across
"these various cases involving Validad Khan", however, it has not
been explained how this quantity was arrived at. The learned counsel
for the respondents made a sincere effort to explain the said quantity
by submitting that the same is attributable not only to the recoveries
made from the petitioner but also to those made from his co-accused.
Apart from the fact that the same does not add up, we are of the
opinion that the grounds of detention must be specific and not left to
the conjecture of the detenu, especially keeping in view the harsh
nature and effect of a detention order. It cannot be left to the detenu to
speculate as to how the quantity was arrived at by the Sponsoring
Authority and relied upon by the Competent Authority to order his
detention.
27. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Impugned Detention
Order dated 20.03.2025, bearing File No. U-11011/01/2025-
PITNDPS, cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside. The
petitioner shall no longer be kept in detention pursuant to the
Impugned Detention Order.
28. The Writ Petition is allowed.
29. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined
to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as
an expression of opinion on the merits of any cases pending trial
against the petitioner.
30. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent of the
concerned Jail forthwith.
31. There shall be no orders as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
MARCH 12, 2026/sg/DG
